The role of change in self‐criticism across young adulthood in explaining developmental outcomes and psychological wellbeing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Past research has confirmed the role of self-criticism in numerous forms of psychopathology and negative interpersonal outcomes. However, the majority of these studies were cross-sectional and have not addressed the role of possible changes in self-criticism across time for future outcomes. The current study investigated the degree to which changes in self-criticism during young adulthood precede better psychological outcomes beyond the contribution of their baseline levels. METHOD: A total of 168 Israeli emerging adults were followed for 12 years. Participants completed assessments of self-criticism at age 23, 24, 26.5, and 29, and of developmental tasks and psychological adaptation at age 35. Analyses assessed the extent to which the intercept and linear slope of self-criticism were associated with assessments of coping with age-related tasks and psychological well-being at age 35. RESULTS: Findings indicated that decreases in self-criticism between the ages of 23 and 29 were associated with better coping with age-related task outcomes and psychological health at age 35. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are among the first to show that decreases in self-criticism serve as important precursors of coping with age-related tasks and psychological outcomes and point to the positive contributions of changes in personality attributes for future development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".